|
Post by jamesinclair on May 31, 2011 21:37:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jun 2, 2011 8:09:29 GMT -8
For those who like to point out how important the Pacific Surfliner is compared to the Acela Express since it has almost as much ridership, keep in mind that the average Surfliner passengers is paying $18, while the average Acela passenger is paying $130, so the Acela gets 8.5 times more revenue for Amtrak despite not having much more ridership.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 2, 2011 13:59:13 GMT -8
That also divides NEC into Acela and Northeast Regional. Those Regional train numbers are pretty incredible.
EDIT: Which is not to put down California's increase in ridership. It reflects changing attitudes toward rail.
I'd be willing to pay Acela prices for Acela speeds.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jun 2, 2011 15:10:49 GMT -8
Passengers per mile is also a good metric, and someone less lazy than me should graph that.
James, whats even more impressive about the NE numbers is that many long distance trains serve the same corridor and allow ticketing. So you can ride from NY to DC and not be on a regional or acela.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jun 2, 2011 18:59:33 GMT -8
Acela isn't worth the price they charge for the service offered. The high price is maintained due to employers footing the bill in most cases.
Northeast Regional is more appropriately priced and not that much slower.
Also, there is no reason why Acela operations should not be subsidized. To say that a train route, for all the good it provides the public, should turn a profit, distorts the market for transportation in a negative way. Drivers should pay the full costs of their transportation choice and then some to make up for negative externalities. Those riding a clean electric train should not have to pay the full price of their journey because they do not capture all of the benefits of that trip (decreased air pollution, decreased traffic, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 9, 2011 13:56:59 GMT -8
Acela + Northeast Regional is 1 million per month, or 2000 per mile per month, which looks good until you realize that true high speed trains carrry 10,000 people per mile per month, or more (e.g. Paris-Lyons)
And it's only 33,000 total per day, less than the Blue Line even if you count round trips.
Now, I believe true HSR (average speed of over 150 mph, top speed 180 or more) between DC and Boston would be even more successful than the TGV between Paris and Lyons; it's the best HSR route in the developed world, outside of Japan, and it would be worth spending even $100 billion (as Amtrak unnecessarily proposes) to get 4 or 5 times as many people riding intercity trains.
But transit is much more important; even the buses on Wilshire carry more people every day than the Amtrak trains on the NEC, and the Red Line in Los Angeles probably carries almost as many people as the whole NEC outside of New York, including the other services besides Amtrak.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 9, 2011 15:11:20 GMT -8
high-speed rail is a form of transit.
People don't travel long distances on a daily basis (and by long distances, I mean Los Angeles to San Jose, not Claremont to Torrance). So, the numbers are always going to be lower.
However, airport traffic does have an effect on traffic in general. This is especially true in L.A. where we don't have an airport out on the edge of town, but LAX is pretty much in the middle. The same goes for Burbank or John Wayne. And LAX is unusually large. The traffic in and out of LAX dwarfs the other airports.
Adding HSR to the picture would help the traffic picture by redirecting some of that LAX traffic to Union Station (or to whatever other stations will be built in Southern California). It would also make rail more enticing for people living in the middle — Bakersfield or Fresno.
I'm hoping that Cal HSR sticks to the plan of serving Palmdale as well, because I think that high-speed rail could potentially change traffic patterns in Antelope Valley as well. It may make a Palmdale airport more feasible. Cal HSR could also force Metrolink to upgrade its own equipment.
Traditional subway and light rail transit may be more important, but we must not forget the potential that HSR has to improve California.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jun 9, 2011 21:32:03 GMT -8
Yeah it doesnt make sense to compare local ridership with long distance ridership.
550 people in a plane = OMG THAT NEW AIRBUS IS ENORMOUS.
But thats less than the average subway train. And the subway train comes every 5 minutes.
Ridership should only be compared within the same class. LA Red line with Boston Red line. Amtrak California with Amtrak Virginia. And of course even then youll have to adjust to per capita and by mile for more accurate comparisons.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jun 9, 2011 21:43:32 GMT -8
Yeah, that's an apples to oranges comparison. Kinda like saying LA Metro Rail has more ridership than the entire OCTA bus system. But at least it's good to know that the next highest Amtrak ridership outside the NEC is right here in SoCal! (I've been on the Acela, Northeast Regional, and Pacific Surfliner). However, when it comes to urban rail ridership, the top three are still east of the Mississippi (NYC MTA, WMATA DC Metro, Chicago CTA).
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 12, 2011 23:42:39 GMT -8
For fair comparisons, you need to include cities outside of the USA. Even some Canadian and Australian cities run circles around us (with the exception of New York) when it comes to transit service, and the English-speaking world as a whole is pretty far behind with intercity rail. By the standards of continental Europe, or Japan, no intercity train or bus service in North America is any good.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jun 13, 2011 8:29:25 GMT -8
Saying Acela isn't worth the price because it's employers paying for people's tickets is like saying business class isn't worth the price for the same reason. And indeed, the two classes on Acela are Business and First, which should give you an idea of the target market for the service.
As far as continental Europe goes, intercity bus service was just plain illegal in parts of it (Germany in particular), which kind of helped their government monopoly train operator avoid any competition and get plenty of profit.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jun 13, 2011 10:07:22 GMT -8
As far as continental Europe goes, intercity bus service was just plain illegal in parts of it (Germany in particular), which kind of helped their government monopoly train operator avoid any competition and get plenty of profit. France as well. If TGV served two markets, then buses were (are?) banned. Its fly with airfrance or train with railfrance.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 13, 2011 11:51:46 GMT -8
all things considered, I'd rather see more intercity trains and fewer intercity buses.
IMHO, the San Joaquin train would do much better than it does now if passengers weren't squeezed into the Coach USA buses at Bakersfield. the Amtrak Thruway buses serve a purpose — they extend the reach of Amtrak's trains. but the quality of the service is much lower, and I think it is a deterent for many passengers.
[ EDIT: I realize, of course, that there are very real logistical problems keeping the San Joaquin from heading further south. I'm just saying it would do better IF there was a quicker way to get trains into the Los Angeles area. ]
if a country has decent rail service — fast trains, frequent trains, not sharing with freights, local service separate from the high speed trunk line — then the need for intercity buses becomes that much less. there are just too many advantages to clean electric power, a private right-of-way (as opposed to unpredictable highway traffic), better seats, better service.
the Narita buses are special because they do provide a unique service. they have multiple routes, they serve every hotel in a given section of Tokyo, they are a little (but not a lot) cheaper than the trains. the service is surprisingly good, with baggage handlers and friendly, helpful ticketing staff at the airport.
they have to be good, because they are competing with two fast train services.
intercity bus service does better in America precisely because we don't have decent rail service, high-speed or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jun 13, 2011 21:13:16 GMT -8
IMHO, the San Joaquin train would do much better than it does now if passengers weren't squeezed into the Coach USA buses at Bakersfield. the Amtrak Thruway buses serve a purpose — they extend the reach of Amtrak's trains. but the quality of the service is much lower, and I think it is a deterent for many passengers. Amtrak operates their own buses, with less rows than a coach usa bus, so that legroom is comparable to the train (ie, very generous). And the bus seats recline, which the trains seats inexplicably do not.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jun 13, 2011 21:54:42 GMT -8
IMHO, the San Joaquin train would do much better than it does now if passengers weren't squeezed into the Coach USA buses at Bakersfield. the Amtrak Thruway buses serve a purpose — they extend the reach of Amtrak's trains. but the quality of the service is much lower, and I think it is a deterent for many passengers. Amtrak operates their own buses, with less roads than a coach usa bus, so that legroom is comparable to the train (ie, very generous). And the bus seats recline, which the trains seats inexplicably do not. I know that some of the California Cars (operated on the San Joaquins and Capitol Corridor) have seats that do not actually recline. Some of the newest California Cars, however, are nearly identical in design to Surfliner cars, all of which have real reclining seats.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 14, 2011 13:34:35 GMT -8
I wouldn't call the seats on the Amtrak buses (operated by Coach USA) "generous," in my experience they've been no more roomy than the seats on any other long distance bus. They aren't bad, but they certainly aren't wonderful.
I find the California Cars which don't recline to be more comfortable than the Amtrak Thruway bus seats which do.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jun 15, 2011 22:38:06 GMT -8
Ive never been on a San Joaquin train with reclining seats.
I took at 1:30am departure from LA, and had a much easier time sleeping on the bus, with seats that reclined like a business class seat on a plane, than on the train seats which didnt move.
Didnt help that the bus loaded 30 minutes early (so we could start our sleeping), while the train did not let us on until 10 minutes after departure time, even though it had been there the entire time.
Standing for 55 minutes in 40 degree fog at 4am = not cool.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 16, 2011 15:29:09 GMT -8
Dude, if you prefer buses you should ride Greyhound. I've never done an inch count, but in my experience, the train has always had more room than a bus. That's with or without reclining seats. Let's not forget seat width as well as the legroom. In all the times that I have ever taken the San Joaquin, they have never let us on 10 minutes AFTER departure time. Usually it is quite a bit before hand. And they do have to do cleaning and reloading of supplies before they leave. Ignoring the legroom issue, the services on the San Joaquin trains, even just the toilets, are better. EDIT: Getting back to the issue of rail monopolies, in most of Europe and in Japan, that "letting you get on early" vs. "making you wait at the platform" issue wouldn't be an issue AT ALL. Many trains board immediately, because there's another train directly behind it in 15-30 minutes. Of course, this works best if the service was frequent, fast and comfortable enough to make the bus superfluous.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jun 16, 2011 18:05:48 GMT -8
This was the first train of the day. There were 2 other sets also chilling in Bakersfield.
Even though we left 30 minutes late, we only arrived 15 minutes late to Fresno.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 16, 2011 22:14:15 GMT -8
Sorry to hear that. Bad things happen. Mistakes happen.
I once had a bus driver make a wrong turn on the way to Glendale, we ended up south of Griffith Park, somewhere in the Hollywood area. Took forever to get back on track, so to speak.
Does this personal anecdote mean anything significant regarding the overall quality of the Amtrak buses? No, not really.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Oct 19, 2011 19:52:37 GMT -8
June and July numbers are in. New records all around. PS is now also #2 for the month, although itll go back to being #3 next month. New record! No record. New record!
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Aug 1, 2012 23:11:34 GMT -8
|
|